Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. John ANASTASIOU, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (William J. Condon, J.), rendered September 30, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (nine counts), upon his plea of guilty, imposing sentence, including a direction that the defendant make restitution in the sum of $1,000, and issuing two restitution judgment orders.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the provisions of the sentence directing the defendant to make restitution in the sum of $1,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the two restitution judgment orders are vacated.
Although the defendant's contention that the County Court violated the plea agreement by directing him to make restitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Sims, 146 A.D.3d 820, 821, 45 N.Y.S.3d 491), we reach the issue in the interest of justice. The court erred in directing the defendant to make restitution, as there is no indication in the plea minutes that the defendant's plea of guilty was negotiated with terms that included restitution. Under the circumstances of this case, and in accordance with the sole remedy sought by the defendant with respect to this claim, we deem it appropriate to vacate the direction that he make restitution and the two restitution judgment orders so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty (see People v. Sheats, 138 A.D.3d 894, 894–895, 28 N.Y.S.3d 324; People v. Nilsen, 129 A.D.3d 994, 995, 11 N.Y.S.3d 255; People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.3d 1067, 963 N.Y.S.2d 406; People v. Esquivel, 100 A.D.3d 652, 652–653, 953 N.Y.S.2d 163; People v. Bruno, 73 A.D.3d 941, 942, 900 N.Y.S.2d 447).
The defendant received the minimum authorized term of imprisonment and postrelease supervision, so we have no authority to reduce those components of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Barber, 106 A.D.3d 1533, 1534, 964 N.Y.S.2d 450; People v. Fiorello, 97 A.D.3d 763, 763, 947 N.Y.S.2d 909; People v. Doumbia, 75 A.D.3d 422, 422, 903 N.Y.S.2d 231).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2016–11808
Decided: June 27, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)